Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/502/01
Decision date
9 November 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
FRESH ENERGY
Classes
05
Applicant
Colegate-Palmolive Company
Opponent
Beecham Group Plc
Opposition
Sections 3(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d), Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Sections 3(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None.

Summary

The opponents filed evidence, particularly from Internet sites, to show that the words FRESH and ENERGY are used extensively as descriptive words but they failed to show that the combination or indeed the word ENERGY, are in use in relation to toothpastes and mouthwashes, the goods of the applicant. It was accepted by all parties that the word FRESH is meaningful in relation to such goods. The Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had failed to substantiate their claims in relation to the Section 3 ground.

Under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) the opponents relied on their registered and well known mark AQUAFRESH. The Hearing Officer decided without difficulty that the respective marks were not confusingly similar even in respect of identical goods. The opponents also failed on these grounds.

Full decision O/502/01 PDF document23Kb